- #4,236
clancy688
- 546
- 1
NUCENG said:I have found all of these references and downladed them this way in the last month.
Well, you could zip and upload them to a sharehoster... ^^
This would be very nice. :)
NUCENG said:I have found all of these references and downladed them this way in the last month.
I meant, when Cs2O reacts with H2O you get 2 CsOHBorek said:Cs+ in water, no idea about the solid.
Dmytry said:Explain then the I-131 to Cs-137 ratio.
Dmytry said:I meant, when Cs2O reacts with H2O you get 2 CsOH
Cs+ and OH- i would think.
This entire talk about there being primarily CsI from the fuel sounds like BS to me, coming from some idea of there being just Cs and I. There's a lot of reactive stuff, like oxygen left over from original UO2 after U fissioned (or fissioned into something other than Cs or I). No reason to think Cs would bind to I (how would it find I?) rather than grab O from UO2 or grab free O from fission, or from the molecules broken up by irradiation. Cs and I are just few reactive things out of many.
|Fred said:Original video is from NTV/NNN , I was not able to find any Japanese version with a sound track. It does not imply that there was not one. I recall that those picture were taken from a helicopter, but can not source it.
Trying to figure out the true-fullness around the audio track is for me a waste of time, I'll rather focus on" prime "evidence for now
And I found an other version with a different sound track that sound as real as the other if not more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly4rRKGx7xc&feature=related
Journalist commentate that they could hear the blast
TCups said:The explosion rips off the roof from the southeast corner, The expanding gas from the explosion continues to lift the roof slab off of the girders and billow it like a sail full of air, the weight of the what is left of the roof slab is borne by the north wall of the building. It begins to fall back into the building, dragging part of the north wall inward and downward (D)
In deed, as for the rest my opinion standMaybe someone with a camera or audio recording equipment captured the sound but not the explosion, maybe at a different location, and the two sources were thrown together.
|Fred said:Original video is from NTV/NNN , I was not able to find any Japanese version with a sound track. It does not imply that there was not one. I recall that those picture were taken from a helicopter, but can not source it.
Trying to figure out the true-fullness around the audio track is for me a waste of time, I'll rather focus on" prime "evidence for now
And I found an other version with a different sound track that sound as real as the other if not more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly4rRKGx7xc&feature=related
Journalist commentate that they could hear the blast
You're speaking in too abstract terms. Making it sound that there's something small to explain.NUCENG said:In short, I can't explain the ratio in this sample. I am saying it can be explained without deposition or criticality or the kind of damage that would release large amounts of hydrogen. It doesn't prove these things didn't happen, it just means there is not yet proof they did happen.
NUCENG said:Did you search using the title?
The results from Ref. 18 indicate that iodine entering
the containment [in case of an accident that leaks
the reactor coolant water into the containment]
is at least 95% CsI with the remaining
5% as I plus Hi, with not less than 1% of each as I and
HI. Once the iodine enters containment, however,
additional reactions are likely to occur. In an aqueous
environment, as expected for LWRs, iodine is expected
to dissolve in water pools or plate out on wet surfaces
in ionic form as I-. Subsequently, iodine behavior
within containment depends on the time and pH of the
water solutions. Because of the presence of other
dissolved fssion products, radiolysis is expected to
o man d lower the pH of the water pools. Without any
pH control, the results indicate that large fractions of
the dissolved iodine will be converted to elemental
iodine and be released to the containment atmosphere.
However, if the pH is controlled and maintained at a
value of 7 or greater, very little (less than 1%) of the
dissolved iodine will be converted to elemental iodine.
In situations where pH levels fall below -7, the formation of I2 will occur in irradiated
iodide solutions. A correlation between pH and iodine formation is needed so that the amounts
of I2 in water pools can be assessed. This, in turn determines the amount of I2 in the atmosphere
available for escape by containment leakage. [...] The most important acids in containment will be nitric acid (HNO3), produced by irradiation of water and air, and hydrochloric acid (HCI), produced by irradiation or heating of electrical cable insulation. The most important bases in containment will be cesium hydroxide,
cesium borate (or cesium carbonate), and in some plants pH additives, such as sodium hydroxide
or sodium phosphate.
In systems where the pH was controlled above 7, little
additional elemental iodine would be produced in the containment atmosphere. When the
pH falls below 7, it may be assumed that it is not being controlled and large fractions of
iodine as I2 within the containment atmosphere may be produced.
NUCENG said:The results from Ref. 18 indicate that iodine entering
the containment is at least 95% CsI with the remaining
5% as I plus HI, with not less than 1% of each as I and
HI.
rowmag said:rowmag said:From the coloring and shape, I am beginning to suspect that it is concrete wall panel from #4's own wall, that somehow got blown upwards to land on its own roof.Tcups said:No, the simplest explanation is the correct one. It is a piece of the roof[...]
Hmm, you're right! The corrugation pattern on the underside is visible in the following photo from houseoffoust.com:
(img removed from quote)
Another beautiful theory slain by ugly facts.
ascot317 said:The audio doesn't have to come from the same source as the video.
Maybe someone with a camera or audio recording equipment captured the sound but not the explosion, maybe at a different location, and the two sources were thrown together.
Jorge Stolfi said:Looking at the latest drone video, it seems that the rebar in the outer concrete shell happens to be anchored and segmented in such a way that the internal explosion ripped the bottom and sides of each "panel" more easily than the top side. Therefore several panels remained attached at the top, like curtains. Apparently they opened out and up during the explosion, then fell back, swinging into the building, only to remain trapped there by the rebar.
This mechanism may explain the paradox of several #4 panels that seem to have been pushed inwards. It also fits with the state of the North wall. There, some panels of the second row from the top detached completely from the wall but remained attached to the panels above them.
By some mechanism that I cannot fathom, the topmost horizontal concrete beam on the North face was pushed (or pulled?) inwards, while the concrete beam below it was pushed and bent outwards. Thus the concrete panels in the second row of the North face were left dangling in the air, a couple of feet away from the building.
NUCENG said:PhD may just stand for Piled Higher and Deeper, but I have references that I will try to make available. I asked Clancy688 for a how to.
Jorge Stolfi said:My conclusion is that, given the unknown/messy chemistry and the unusual physical conditions of the pool, a low concentration of radiogenic iodine in the pool water, a month after the accident, may not imply low level of fuel damage, since an unknown amount may have escaped as I2 or HI with the steam. The level of radioactive cesium in the water may be a better indicator. What does the latter say?
NUCENG said:From an ORIGEN2 calculation of a BWR the core inventory of I-131 at 6months after shutdown is 5.03E-3 Ci per MW. Assuming 760 MW Electric and a 33% efficiency for Unit 4 leaves a total I-131 at the time of the accident of 5.23E5 Ci. In Taking 5% (gap release) and converting to Bq leaves 9.67E14 Bq.
htf said:5.03E-3 Ci/MW * (1/.33 * 760 MW ) = 11.58 Ci = 4.3e11 Bq
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/world/asia/20japan.html?_r=1&ref=world"Robots entered Reactors Nos. 1 and 3 on Sunday and measured the radiation inside. But when two robots entered Reactor No. 2 on Monday, the steam inside was so dense that a robot mounted with a camera was unable to get a clear image of a radiation sensor carried by the other robot, Japanese officials said.
elektrownik said:
NUCENG said:After 9/11 many plant and site drawings were removed from ADAMS and were considered as Safeguards information. These drawings may have been missed or a mistake. Or maybe somebody finally figured that this wouldn't really help a terrorist.
idiots. They've been offered KHG robots.elektrownik said:
NUCENG said:I agree with everything you say but if you eliminate hydrogen from SFP4 what is left? However improbable, and to date unproveable, it had to come from an external explosion. The initial report of the explosion talked of "an explosion inside the facility" and then they found damage to unit 4. It doesn't sound to me like they knew for certain that the explosion was inside unit 4. Your guess is as good as mine.
if i could make up a motive, i would ;-)Ms Music said:I am almost amazed people haven't come out and said these explosions were an inside job...
That was over 2 weeks ago - didn't they accept?Dmytry said:idiots. They've been offered KHG robots.
Ya, that was in the working notes/speculation I forwarded to you TCups. The problem is I can't say for certain from the data that the third explosion is wholly different from the previous two, because I was not able to eliminate the possibility that some post processing (normalization, volume adjustment etc.) had been applied to the sound track.TCups said:RE: THE EXPLOSIONS AND PATTERN OF DAMAGE AT BLDG 3 & 4 -- SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERNECES
@Fred:
M. Bachmeir did extensive analysis of the sound frequencies and concluded that Bang 1 and Bang 2 were similar and were explosions and that Bang 3 was fundamentally different from the first two, as I recall. Maybe he would comment again about the possibility of one of the audible bangs being a mechanical transient from a large falling object.
Dmytry said:You're speaking in too abstract terms. Making it sound that there's something small to explain.
When was the reactor 4 shut down? Sometime before 29 November 2010 from, what I can find.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(11th+march+2011+-+29+November+2010)/(8+days)
at least 12 half lifes. That's factor of 4000 edit: and for 6 months that is a factor of millions.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Most_fuel_in_Fukushima_4_pool_undamaged-1404117.html
reported values:
220 Bq/cm3 of iodine-131, 88 Bq/cm3 of caesium-134 and 93 Bq/cm3 of caesium-137.
2x iodine to caesium.
Elsewhere (seawater, puddle water, soil samples, everything) nowadays they are measuring well less than 8x iodine to caesium.
You need to explain factor of more than 1000 better releasing of iodine than caesium in the pool versus the reactors (or for 6 months, factor of more than million). You don't explain it but you say it can be explained. I say until someone explained it, we'd better assume it is going critical there (or the aerial deposition is insanely high, which might well be true, i'd expect then it to be confirmed sometime by the bio-ionization-chamber measurements :/ [a dark pun at chernobyl's 'bio-robots'] ) 30GBq/m^2 that is a lot rly.
edit: and I don't believe in special role of CsI due to there being a lot more different elements and compounds besides Cs and I.
That's the spirit! they used i-robot http://www.irobot.com/Dmytry said:idiots..
But what if it is leaking? There was also a lot of steam generated, so a significant fraction of the Iodine could have been released to the atmosphere. They had to fill it many times. You can find good reasons why the 24 Bq/cm^3 are an overestimation.clancy688 said:But I think there are more factors contributing. First, it has not been 6 but 5 months or less since shutdown. And second, the pool is totally full AND there's probably debris inside, plus it's probably not filled up to the top. So if I double your 24 Bq/cm³ three times (three half times, less then one month) I get ~200 Bq/cm³. And because of the fill status /debris / water height there's probably not 900 billion cm³ water inside, but less.
Jorge Stolfi said:Thanks for the tip, serching by title worked fine. From the first ref:
If I read correctly, the report also says that about 35% of the iodine and 25% of the cesium present in the fuel will be released with the coolant leak, in the early stages at least. is this correct?
The second ref (summary) says
If the seawater was treated with sodium borate, it should probably be alkaline. If they used boric acid, I don't know. B(OH)3 seems to be a weak acid; will it be enough to lower the pH below 7? In hot water?
(My greatest achievement as a teenage chemist was distilling ethanol with boric acid to obtain something which I fancied to be ethyl borate. At least, it burned with a nice lemon-green flame, as theory said it would. Presumably that would mean that B(OH)3 does act like an acid? )
The last report you cited seems to have a more limited scope than the first. But its main conclusion, again, seems to be
My conclusion is that, given the unknown/messy chemistry and the unusual physical conditions of the pool, a low concentration of radiogenic iodine in the pool water, a month after the accident, may not imply low level of fuel damage, since an unknown amount may have escaped as I2 or HI with the steam. The level of radioactive cesium in the water may be a better indicator. What does the latter say?
elektrownik said:about unit #4 explosion: "IF" there would be fuel in core then this explosion wouldn't be simpler to explain ?
NUCENG said:I agree with everything you say but if you eliminate hydrogen from SFP4 what is left? However improbable, and to date unproveable, it had to come from an external explosion. The initial report of the explosion talked of "an explosion inside the facility" and then they found damage to unit 4. It doesn't sound to me like they knew for certain that the explosion was inside unit 4. Your guess is as good as mine.
StrangeBeauty said:TCups, you may continue on your puzzle hunt, which has often been interesting -- but I'm just trying to keep you from wasting time on bad information. Yes, I'm suggesting fakery/fraud to gain viewers. It was obvious to me from the first time I heard it that was concocted since I've concocted such things myself for various purposes (e.g. foley work). Not only did I think this was concocted, but it was badly done - an obvious fake for the reasons I listed above. An actual, large explosion at that distance sounds nothing like that track. If a real soundtrack for the explosion became available why wouldn't the more reputable news organizations cover that? The bottom line, as an investigator, you need to prove your source is legitimate and that has not been done.
|Fred said:Original video is from NTV/NNN , I was not able to find any Japanese version with a sound track. It does not imply that there was not one. I recall that those picture were taken from a helicopter, but can not source it.
cphoenix said:Stagnant, near-boiling-hot water at the bottom of the pool would contain 24 kg TNT equivalent per cubic meter. 125 C, 4 J/gC, 1E6 g/m^3. Do the arithmetic. 1E8 J = 24 kg TNT.
There are at least three ways that convection could be stopped, and hot water accumulate:
1) Rack falls over.
2) Something flat falls on rack, covers top.
3) Rack knocked off supports, sitting on pool bottom.
How many cubic meters of water could be trapped? 1E2? 1E3? We could easily be talking tons of TNT. Thousands of cubic meters of steam.
If hot water accumulated, then sufficient perturbation (not necessarily much of a disturbance) would create a geyser. Release hundreds, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of steam indoors in less than a second... and you lose your roof and walls.
Chris
bytepirate said:looking at the sources (digitalglobe pics, drone video) already posted, i can not imagine any outside source for the damage in #4.
bytepirate said:what exploded in #4?
(trimmed by cphoenix)
steam explosion?
i have not found any reference to this possible risk anywhere in the literature. were all the engineers that did the risk analysis wrong? rather not -> quite unlikely
StrangeBeauty said:TCups, you may continue on your puzzle hunt, which has often been interesting -- but I'm just trying to keep you from wasting time on bad information. Yes, I'm suggesting fakery/fraud to gain viewers. It was obvious to me from the first time I heard it that was concocted since I've concocted such things myself for various purposes (e.g. foley work). Not only did I think this was concocted, but it was badly done - an obvious fake for the reasons I listed above. An actual, large explosion at that distance sounds nothing like that track. If a real soundtrack for the explosion became available why wouldn't the more reputable news organizations cover that? The bottom line, as an investigator, you need to prove your source is legitimate and that has not been done.
MiceAndMen said:We need to get some information from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Whose camera recorded the explosion? Where was it located? Did it also record audio? If the released video shown on TV - I would heavily, heavily discount anything found on YouTube - had an audio track, where was the microphone that recorded the audio?
As bad as the press is in the US, I'm sure all those questions would have been asked and answered already if a reactor building exploded here. Maybe they are asking those questions in Japan and we're just not aware of it due to the language barrier that keeps us from really following the Japanese news coverage, blogs and other websites there.